Ramon Ruffy v. The Chief of Staff

TOPICS: Status of Officers and Men of Philippines Army during the Military Occupation; Suspension of Political Laws during the Military Occupation is only for Civil Inhabitants; Persons subject to Military Law; Articles of War 

FACTS: 

The petitioners are members of the Philippine Constabulary and retreated to the mountains of Mindoro when the Japanese forces advanced in the province. While in the mountains, the petitioners led as officers in a guerilla outfit known as Bolo Combat Team or Bolo Area. However, they were alleged to have killed Lieutenant Colonel Jurado.

Lieutenant Colonel Jurado was dispatched by the 6th Military District from its headquarter in Panay to assume operational control and supervision over the Bolo Area. The 6th Military District was headed by Brigadier General Macario Peralta, Jr., whose district was recognized by the Headquarters of the Southwest Pacific Area as a military unit and part of its command.

When the petitioners were put to trial, they argued that the National Defense Act and all laws and regulations creating and governing the existence of the Philippine Army including the Articles of War, were suspended and in abeyance during the such belligerent occupation. 

ISSUE: 

I) WON the petitioners are part of the Philippine Army 

II) WON the petitioners, as members of the Philippine Army, can be legally held subject to the military jurisdiction and trial.

III) WON political laws in nature are abrogated during the Japanese Occupation

IV) WON the 93rd Article of War is unconstitutional

RULING

I.

Yes, the petitioners are part of the Philippine Army. 

Under the general application of the Articles of War, all other persons lawfully called, drafted, or ordered into, or to duty or for training in, the said service, from the dates they are required by the terms of the call, draft, or order to obey the same are members of the Philippine Army. 

In this case, the acceptance of the petitioners of appointments as officers in the Bolo Area from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military District, made them members of the Philippine Army and amenable to the Articles of War. The Bolo Area received supplies and funds for the salaries of its officers and men from the Southwest Pacific Command. 

Therefore, the petitioners are part of the Philippine Army and be subjected to the military jurisdiction and trial.

II.

Yes, the petitioners can be legally held subject to the military jurisdiction and trial.

By the occupation of the Philippines by Japanese forces, the officers and men of the Philippine Army did not cease to be fully in the service, though, in a measure, only in a measure, they were not subject to the military jurisdiction, if they were not in active duty. In the latter case, like officers and soldiers on leave of absence or held as prisoners of war, they could not be held guilty of a breach of the discipline of the command or of a neglect of duty, or disobedience of orders, or mutiny or subject to a military trial therefor; but for an act unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, or an act which constitutes an offense of the class specified in the 95th Article of War, they may in general be legally held subject to military jurisdiction and trial.

III.

No. The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered superseded or in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory. It is not intended for and does not bind the enemies in arms.

IV.

No, the Articles of War is not unconstitutional. 

The 93d Article of War which fails to allow a review by the Supreme Court of judgments of courts martial imposing death or life imprisonment does not violate Article VIII, section 2, paragraph 4, of the Constitution which provides that "the National Assembly may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment." Courts martial are agencies of executive character, and one of the authorities "for the ordering of courts martial has been held to be attached to the constitutional functions of the President as Commander in Chief, independently of legislation." Unlike courts of law, they are not a portion of the judiciary.

Co Kim Cham v. Eusebio Valdez Tan Keh

TOPICS: Belligerent occupation; kinds of a de facto government; characteristics of a de facto government of paramount force; powers and duties of a de facto government or a belligerent occupant

FACTS: 

Respondent judge was ordered to continue the proceedings in a civil case initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established under the Japanese Military Occupation.

However, the Respondent refused to take cognizance of the case on the ground that Gen. McArthur issued a proclamation invalidating and nullifying all “processes” under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese Military Occupation.

ISSUES: 

I. WON the judicial acts and proceedings of the court existing in the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines were good and valid.

II. WON the word “processes” in the proclamation of Gen. McArthur includes the nullification of the “judicial processes” during the Japanese Military Occupation.

III. WON the courts of the Commonwealth may continue with those proceedings pending at the time the Philippines was reoccupied  and liberated by the US and Filipino forces.  

RULING:

I.

Yes, judicial acts and proceedings of the court existing in the Philippines under the Japanese Military Occupation were good and valid.

The Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation or regime were de facto governments. As de facto governments, the judicial acts and proceedings of courts of those governments remain good and valid even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces (under the principle of postliminy in the International Law)

In line with the duties and functions of a de facto government under the Hague Convention of 1907, the belligerent occupant is enjoined to respect the municipal laws enforced in the country. The same was intended by the Commander in Chief of the Military Forces when he proclaimed that all public officials shall remain in their present posts and carry on faithfully their duties as before. 

II

No, the word "processes," as used in the proclamation of General Douglas MacArthur of October 23, 1944, cannot be interpreted to invalidate judicial processes or all judgments and proceedings of the courts during the Japanese regime; that term should be construed to mean legislative and constitutional processes. 

Where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great public interests would be endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers of the law.

"Processes" must be interpreted or construed to refer to the Executive Orders of the Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission, ordinances promulgated by the President of the so-called Republic of the Philippines, and the Constitution itself of said Republic, and others that are of the same class as the laws and regulations with which the word "processes" is associated.

III.

Yes, the courts of the Commonwealth may continue with those proceedings pending at the time the Philippines was reoccupied  and liberated by the US and Filipino forces.

By virtue of the principle of postliminy, the same courts, which had become reestablished and conceived of as having in continued existence may continue the proceedings in cases then pending in said courts, without necessity of enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them to continue said proceedings.

--------- 

DISCUSSION:

A belligerent or military occupation is essentially provisional and does not serve to transfer the sovereignty over the occupied territory to the occupant. A belligerent or so-called military occupation is a question of fact. It presupposes a hostile invasion as a result of which has rendered the invaded government incapable of publicly exercising its authority, and that the invader is in position to substitute and has substituted his own authority for that of the legitimate government of the territory invaded. A belligerent occupation must be both actual and effective. Organized resistance must be overcome and the forces in possession must have taken measures to establish law and order.

There are several kinds of de facto governments:

1) Government de facto in a proper legal sense, is that government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter, such as the government of England under the Commonwealth, first by Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector.

2) That established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force, as the cases of Castine, in Maine, which was reduced to British possession in the war of 1812, and Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico, by the troops of the United States.

3) That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state of such as the government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union during the war of secession in the US.

The Second Republic of the Philippines was that of a de facto government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are:

(1) that its existence is maintained by active military power with the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and 

(2) that while it exists it necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, or wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government.

The powers and duties of a de facto government is provided under the Hague Conventions of 1907 which states that the authority of the legislative power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take steps in his power to reestablish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

A belligerent occupant has the right and is burdened with the duty to insure public order and safety during his military occupation, he possesses all the powers of a de facto government, and he can suspended the old laws and promulgate new ones and make such changes in the old as he may see fit, but he is enjoined to respect, unless absolutely prevented by the circumstances prevailing in the occupied territory, the municipal laws in force in the country, that is, those laws which enforce public order and regulate social and commercial life of the country.

The municipal laws of the conquered territory, such as affect private rights of person and property and provide for the punishment of crime, are considered as continuing in force, so far as they are compatible with the new order of things, until they are suspended or superseded by the occupying belligerent.

The Philippine Executive Commission which was organized by Order No. 1 of the Commander in Chief of the Japanese forces was a government imposed by laws of war. The Republic of the Philippines has also the same character as the Philippine Executive Commission. 

Macariola v. Asuncion

TOPICS: Abrogation of political laws during a change of sovereignty; Political Law

FACTS: 

Petitioner, Macariola sought for the annulment of the project of partition approved by Judge Asuncion. The petition was dismissed and the partition has achieved its finality. 

Subsequently, Judge Asuncion acquired a portion of the lot  from Dr. Galapon, who earlier purchased the same from the heirs complained of by Macariola. 

Judge Asuncion was charged for having violated (1) Article 1491 of the New Civil Code when he acquired by purchase portion of a lot which was involved in a civil case decided by him; (2) Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Civil Service Rules, and the Canons of Judicial Ethics, when he associated himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as a stockholder and a ranking officer while he was a judge of the Court of First Instance.  

ISSUE: 

I. WON Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491 of the NCC.

II. WON Article 14 of the Code of Commerce is still in force. 

RULING:

I.

No, Judge Asuncion did not violate Article 1491 of the NCC. 

For the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. 

In this case, Judge Asuncion purchased the lot when the decision he rendered was already final. In fact, Judge Asuncion did not directly buy the lot from the heirs, but from Dr. Galapon, who earlier purchased it from the heirs. Hence, subsequent sale of the lot to Dr. Galapon and to Judge Asuncion took place after the finality of the decision in the project for partition.

Therefore, Judge Asuncion did not violate the prohibition on the purchase portion of a lot which was involved in a civil case decided by him.

II.

No, Judge Asuncion did not violate Article 14 of the Code of Commerce.

Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign

The Code of Commerce partakes of part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public officers and employees, like justices and judges. 

Therefore, Judge Asuncion did not violate Article 14 of the Code of Commerce.

--------- 

DISCUSSION:

Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory.

Political law embraces constitutional law, law of public corporations, administrative law including the law on public officers and elections.

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

People v. Perfector

TOPICS: Abrogation of political laws during a change of sovereignty

FACTS: 

Gregorio Perfecto, the editor of the newspaper, La Nacion, published an article exposing the members of the Philippine Senate to public hatred over the investigation of oil companies. 

The lower court found Perfecto to have violated Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code. Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was still in force. 

RULING:

No, Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was no longer in force. 

The general principle of the public law provides that on an acquisition of territory, the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. Political laws are those laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign.

In this case, Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. It regulates the relations between the inhabitants and the Spanish officials.

Therefore, Article 256, being deemed to be political in nature, was already abrogated upon the change of sovereignty in the Philippines. 

Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Aquino

TOPICS: de facto government; de jure government

FACTS: 

On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. 

On March 25, 1986, proclamation No. 3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines.”

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate.

RULING:

Yes, the Aquino government was legitimate. 

The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the judge.

The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a  de facto government but is in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government.

Therefore, the Aquino government is a legitimate government and is thus a de jure government.